ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 1496
Feb 14 10 11:33 AM
Just call me Author
POD Proposal β RN Battleship construction β Part 1
Background β What happened in OTL
King George V class: When war broke out in 1939 the RN had 5 King George V class in advanced stages of building β all were launched in 1940, and completed between 1940 and 1942.
Lion Class: 4 Lion class had been authorised (2 in the 1938 estimates, 2 in the 1939 estimates), but only the 2 1938 ships (Lion and Temeraire) had been laid down (in June and July 1939), and construction was not very far advanced. On 28 September 1939 the decision was taken to suspend construction although work on the gun mountings would continue (this will be an important factor in the discussion in Part 2).
Vanguard Class: Vanguard was based on an early study from 1937, which was dusted down and re-evaluated in 1939. There was much discussion in 1940 about the design. The order for the ship was not placed until 14 March 1941, and she was not laid down until 2 October 1941.
POD - Rationale
The POD for RN Battleships is mid/late 1940. With the French still in the war, and the MN Battlefleet still available to the Allied cause, there is much less need for the RN to consider ordering another battleship.
With the King George V class being completed as OTL, the RN feel that combined with the MN forces (Dunkerque and Strasbourg, with Richelieu and Jean Bart nearing completion), they have sufficient fast modern battleships available.
Consequently, there isnβt the need to lay down another ship β it would be a waste of resources that could be better used elsewhere. There is also less impetus to discuss the Vanguard design (which would tie up valuable design resource in the DNCs department), so the 1939 discussions die out and get quietly shelved.
Effect: Vanguard doesnβt get authorised in March 41 or laid down in October.
POD Team Discussion: Youβll probably want to think about the butterflies arising from this decision. The main one being that as of October 41 a large (battleship sized) berth and a lot of shipbuilding manpower has become available at the John Brown yard. Planning on how to use this berth would probably start earlier (say around May/June 41). Given the POD strategic position at that time, how best to use it?
This is something for you to decide, but here are some ideas to start off your discussions:
Β· Offer it up to the French, to enable them to speed up completion of Richelieu and Jean Bart β this gives a βquick winβ, as the ships are largely complete already, so the yard can probably complete work (freeing up the berth for another project) within 6 months or so. Also it scores diplomatic brownie points with the French.
Β· Build a third Implacable class carrier β John Brown is already working on one (Indefatigable), so they already have the plans to hand, and the experience in building it.
Β· Repair of damaged ships β do the RN/MN have any large (Cruiser or above ships) in need of repair?
POD β the decision to build again
Note β the following assumes that events follow βFFOβ. If however some of the events change (for example if Admiral Phillips and the Far Eastern Fleet still get defeated, but with a less savage outcome) then the drivers will change.
In mid 1941 the RN sees no need for new battleship construction. When does this change? The obvious answer is Japanβs entry into the war. This changes the whole strategic picture β especially after Admiral Phillips and the Far Eastern Fleet fights the Battle of the China Sea. Suddenly there is a need to make up the losses, and rebuild the battleline.
Proposed timeline:
(Edited to fix format issues - bloody Yuku!)
Feb 14 10 11:41 AM
POD Proposal β RN Battleship construction Part 2
New Battleship Build β Lion or Vanguard?
As we saw in Part 1, the decision to go ahead with Battleship construction takes place early 1942. The need is urgent, the ships are needed as soon as possible. Realistically there are two options on the table:
Option 1 - Vanguard
Re use the turrets and guns from Glorious and Courageous, and use them to arm a modern ship. Superficially a good idea, however there are some potential issues:
Β· Detailed plans have not been drawn up β there are a few sketch designs, but (unlike OTL where discussions/refinement of plans took place throughout 1940/early 41) there are no detailed plans available.
Β· The turrets are of an old design, with magazines sited above shell handling rooms, whereas modern design calls for shell handling rooms to be above magazines. The turrets will have to be re-worked and modified to bring them up to modern standards, and to incorporate the current level of flash protection. This will require considerable work, both in terms of design effort and manufacturing/construction resources.
Β· Only one set of turrets is available, which means only one ship can be produced.
These issues are solvable, however solving them will take time, and time is a luxury right now β the perceived need is to get the ships build as soon as practicable.
Option 2 - Lion
Lion looks like a good option for the following reasons:
Β· Detailed plans (approved by the Admiralty Board) already exist. They will need to be reviewed in light of wartime experience, but this should only result in comparatively minor changes.
Β· One of the main bottlenecks in battleship construction is the gun mountings. Thanks to the (OTL) decision that work on the mountings would continue (see Part 1), work on the mountings has already been underway for over two years β by now they should be largely complete.
These advantages would seem to swing the decision for the Lion, however there is a fly in the ointment β the armament. The Lions are designed for a new 16in gun. This isnβt yet in service, is of unproven reliability, and the production facilities for the ammunition arenβt in place yet. Furthermore, shortage of spare ammunition may place logistical constraints on deployment of the ships when complete.
POD β Proposed Solution β Modified Lion
In the end, the availability of sufficient turrets to build 2 ships swings it in favour of a modified Lion design. The modification takes two forms:
Β· Tweaking the design to take account of war experience (for example more light AA)
Β· Change the armament to 9 x 15 in guns β the 15 inch is a well liked and reliable weapon, and logistically speaking the logical choice β stocks of ammo exist all over the Empire, and wartime experience has already shown that in extremis, old 4crh ammo can be pressed into service (see APOD 6-9 Sept 40).
While the change will require some modification to the turret and magazine fittings, these can be designed to enable them to be reversed later, giving the option of upgunning to 16in later if required.
As far as availability of guns is concerned, taking the 8 intended for Vanguard, plus one from stores gives enough to arm one of the Lions. Working on the assumption that there are insufficient weapons left in storage to arm the second ship, decommissioning and de-arming one of the R class (which are well past their sell-by date and not fit to face a modern opponent anyway) arms the second.
Time to Build
Hopefully youβll pardon a historical digression, but this sets the yardstick by which Iβm judging potential build time.
Warship 2009 contains an article βA shipyard at Warβ, all about the John Brown Yard during WW1. It contains a fairly detailed account of the building of HMS Repulse.
According to the article, her keel was laid on 25 January 1915, and she had completed steam and gun trials and finally left the yard on 16 August 1916. As this included a 6 week delay while the ships plans were finalised, the effective build time was around 18 months.
The reason the ship was completed so quickly was that the turrets were already available, having been re-assigned from an R class.
OK digression over - taking 18 months for construction of a WW1 Battlecruiser as our yardstick, if we assume that the Lions are assigned top priority for men/material, and given the availability of (almost complete) turrets, I think that 20-22 months construction time is a reasonable estimate. The extra time allows for more complex electrical/electronic equipment fit.
So, from the timescales established in Part 1, building schedule goes like this:
Posts: 132
Feb 14 10 4:22 PM
Feb 14 10 10:21 PM
Posts: 3716
Feb 14 10 11:11 PM
Born Again P-76 Pilot
Very timely thread, this! I have added some thoughts below.
POD Proposal β RN Battleship construction β Part 1 Background β What happened in OTL King George V class: When war broke out in 1939 the RN had 5 King George V class in advanced stages of building β all were launched in 1940, and completed between 1940 and 1942. Lion Class: 4 Lion class had been authorised (2 in the 1938 estimates, 2 in the 1939 estimates), but only the 2 1938 ships (Lion and Temeraire) had been laid down (in June and July 1939), and construction was not very far advanced. On 28 September 1939 the decision was taken to suspend construction although work on the gun mountings would continue (this will be an important factor in the discussion in Part 2). Vanguard Class: Vanguard was based on an early study from 1937, which was dusted down and re-evaluated in 1939. There was much discussion in 1940 about the design. The order for the ship was not placed until 14 March 1941, and she was not laid down until 2 October 1941.
POD Proposal β RN Battleship construction β Part 1 Background β What happened in OTL King George V class: When war broke out in 1939 the RN had 5 King George V class in advanced stages of building β all were launched in 1940, and completed between 1940 and 1942.
Vanguard: The decision for Vanguard was a pre-war 'emergency' decision made in 1939. She was conceived as a 'fully armoured battle-cruiser for the Far East'. importantly, she was always considered an 'emergency' (that is, second class) ship. It's important to note that material assembly and rebuilding of the turrets, guns, shell room machinery etc stored in Rosyth began in 1939 and was mostly completed in 1940. it's often thought that this was a sort of 'paint and polish' effort, but it was not. It was expensive and very comprehensive, all but the major structural items of teh turrets, guns and systemswere replaced or fully refurbished.
So at POD, this task is mostly done, material assembly is underway and the armour is being built. What delayed Vanguard in 1941 was the dry cargo ship repair crisis. This is not really an issue in APOD (or FFO for that matter), because the trigger for that crisis was the British purchase of 100 old US merchant ships. These needed a hell of a lot of refit work, and it was very expensive and had to be done in US yards! In APOD and FFO, the British will just not be buying these ships. The French and Belgians have to. That enables them to use these vessels for calmer, tropical colonial trades (working the cross-trades) while their better merchant ships head for the North Atlantic. There's no options here for them. The British just do not have the tonnage to support North Africa and Congo even with the additional 1.2-1.3 million grt of their merchant fleets. The must find an 'instant' million grt themselves. He 100 old US ships and 70 new-build standard tramps in US yards are the only games in town. And the 100 used ships will have to be refitted it Franco-Belgian expense in US yards. The UK will bring a shipbuilding crisis down on its own head if they accept the repair contracts. Oh, they'll accept a few, maybe 5 or so, but not enough to help. They'll also be able to do some of their own, maybe another 10-15.
Now, I am most definitely NOT a fan of any additional RN BB construction (neither was the Naval Constructor Sir Stanley Goodall in OTL!) but Cunningham, Pound and Churchill very definitely were. So, unfortunately, in both APOD and FFO in June-Dec 40, all the drivers to delay Vanguard vanish⦠In fact, they get accelerated in 1940 because the 'gun club' can really pounce on this issue. The delay in authorisation was caused by Sir Stanley Goodall's gallant rearguard action against the ship. His major ammunition there was the cruiser shortage, caused by the loss of the French navy. he does not have that ammunition here in APOD.
The bad thing? I'd personally much rather not have her at all (but personal feelings do not count). The good thing? She's cheap, and does not cost much. The damned thing gets brought forward by these drivers, with the 5.25" shortage meaning that she probably gets 4.5" instead.
We covered a lot of this at: http://francefightson.yuk...sponses-in-FFO-Pt-1.html href="http://francefightson.yuku.com/topic/586/t/RN-Responses-in-FFO-Pt-1.html">http://francefightson.yuk...sponses-in-FFO-Pt-1.html>http://francefightson.yuk...sponses-in-FFO-Pt-1.html face="Times New Roman" color=#0000ff>http://francefightson.yuk...sponses-in-FFO-Pt-1.html
All that said, this is NOT FFO, it is APOD, and this issue really does need serious and considered review - so I am extremely grateful to you for doing so!
POD - Rationale The POD for RN Battleships is mid/late 1940. With the French still in the war, and the MN Battlefleet still available to the Allied cause, there is much less need for the RN to consider ordering another battleship. With the King George V class being completed as OTL, the RN feel that combined with the MN forces (Dunkerque and Strasbourg, with Richelieu and Jean Bart nearing completion), they have sufficient fast modern battleships available. Consequently, there isnβt the need to lay down another ship β it would be a waste of resources that could be better used elsewhere. There is also less impetus to discuss the Vanguard design (which would tie up valuable design resource in the DNCs department), so the 1939 discussions die out and get quietly shelved. Effect: Vanguard doesnβt get authorised in March 41 or laid down in October.
POD - Rationale The POD for RN Battleships is mid/late 1940. With the French still in the war, and the MN Battlefleet still available to the Allied cause, there is much less need for the RN to consider ordering another battleship.
Comment: Gloomily, I am forced to say that she probably does get built due to the above mix of drivers. All those stars line up, unfortunately. HOWEVER, this does not mean your comments on the Lions are invalid, quite the opposite.
This is something for you to decide, but here are some ideas to start off your discussions: Β· Offer it up to the French, to enable them to speed up completion of Richelieu and Jean Bart β this gives a βquick winβ, as the ships are largely complete already, so the yard can probably complete work (freeing up the berth for another project) within 6 months or so. Also it scores diplomatic brownie points with the French. Β· Build a third Implacable class carrier β John Brown is already working on one (Indefatigable), so they already have the plans to hand, and the experience in building it. Β· Repair of damaged ships β do the RN/MN have any large (Cruiser or above ships) in need of repair?
This is something for you to decide, but here are some ideas to start off your discussions: Β· Offer it up to the French, to enable them to speed up completion of Richelieu and Jean Bart β this gives a βquick winβ, as the ships are largely complete already, so the yard can probably complete work (freeing up the berth for another project) within 6 months or so. Also it scores diplomatic brownie points with the French.
1. In FFO, the Euroteam completed Richelieu in the USA (at French cost) in an ingenious way. IIRC they sent both Jean Bart and Richelieu to the same yard. Jean Bart was stripped to complete Richelieu, (speeding her up a bit) and then left at the yard to be converted into a fast carrier! This seems logical. What's your view on this?
2. John Brown is a shipbuilder of note and that's a heavy building way. There is another alternative - lay down a Malta class carrier.
POD β the decision to build again Note β the following assumes that events follow βFFOβ. If however some of the events change (for example if Admiral Phillips and the Far Eastern Fleet still get defeated, but with a less savage outcome) then the drivers will change. In mid 1941 the RN sees no need for new battleship construction. When does this change? The obvious answer is Japanβs entry into the war. This changes the whole strategic picture β especially after Admiral Phillips and the Far Eastern Fleet fights the Battle of the China Sea. Suddenly there is a need to make up the losses, and rebuild the battleline. Proposed timeline: December 41 β Japan declares war December 41 β Battle of the China Sea January 42 β RN decision to build Battleship(s) Ships(s) laid down sometime between Marchg-May 42 - it takes time to complete/postpone existing work and free up the berths required for construction. POD Proposal β RN Battleship construction Part 2 New Battleship Build β Lion or Vanguard? As we saw in Part 1, the decision to go ahead with Battleship construction takes place early 1942. The need is urgent, the ships are needed as soon as possible. Realistically there are two options on the table: Option 1 - Vanguard Re use the turrets and guns from Glorious and Courageous, and use them to arm a modern ship. Superficially a good idea, however there are some potential issues: Β· Detailed plans have not been drawn up β there are a few sketch designs, but (unlike OTL where discussions/refinement of plans took place throughout 1940/early 41) there are no detailed plans available. Β· The turrets are of an old design, with magazines sited above shell handling rooms, whereas modern design calls for shell handling rooms to be above magazines. The turrets will have to be re-worked and modified to bring them up to modern standards, and to incorporate the current level of flash protection. This will require considerable work, both in terms of design effort and manufacturing/construction resources. Β· Only one set of turrets is available, which means only one ship can be produced. These issues are solvable, however solving them will take time, and time is a luxury right now β the perceived need is to get the ships build as soon as practicable.
POD β the decision to build again Note β the following assumes that events follow βFFOβ. If however some of the events change (for example if Admiral Phillips and the Far Eastern Fleet still get defeated, but with a less savage outcome) then the drivers will change.
POD Proposal β RN Battleship construction Part 2 New Battleship Build β Lion or Vanguard? As we saw in Part 1, the decision to go ahead with Battleship construction takes place early 1942. The need is urgent, the ships are needed as soon as possible. Realistically there are two options on the table:
Option 1 - Vanguard Re use the turrets and guns from Glorious and Courageous, and use them to arm a modern ship. Superficially a good idea, however there are some potential issues:
Β· Only one set of turrets is available, which means only one ship can be produced. These issues are solvable, however solving them will take time, and time is a luxury right now β the perceived need is to get the ships build as soon as practicable.
Option 2 - Lion Lion looks like a good option for the following reasons: Β· Detailed plans (approved by the Admiralty Board) already exist. They will need to be reviewed in light of wartime experience, but this should only result in comparatively minor changes. Β· One of the main bottlenecks in battleship construction is the gun mountings. Thanks to the (OTL) decision that work on the mountings would continue (see Part 1), work on the mountings has already been underway for over two years β by now they should be largely complete. These advantages would seem to swing the decision for the Lion, however there is a fly in the ointment β the armament. The Lions are designed for a new 16in gun. This isnβt yet in service, is of unproven reliability, and the production facilities for the ammunition arenβt in place yet. Furthermore, shortage of spare ammunition may place logistical constraints on deployment of the ships when complete. end, the availability of sufficient turrets to build 2 ships swings it in favour of a modified Lion design. The modification takes two forms: Β· Tweaking the design to take account of war experience (for example more light AA) Β· Change the armament to 9 x 15 in guns β the 15 inch is a well liked and reliable weapon, and logistically speaking the logical choice β stocks of ammo exist all over the Empire, and wartime experience has already shown that in extremis, old 4crh ammo can be pressed into service (see APOD 6-9 Sept 40). While the change will require some modification to the turret and magazine fittings, these can be designed to enable them to be reversed later, giving the option of upgunning to 16in later if required. As far as availability of guns is concerned, taking the 8 intended for Vanguard, plus one from stores gives enough to arm one of the Lions. Working on the assumption that there are insufficient weapons left in storage to arm the second ship, decommissioning and de-arming one of the R class (which are well past their sell-by date and not fit to face a modern opponent anyway) arms the second.
Option 2 - Lion Lion looks like a good option for the following reasons: Β· Detailed plans (approved by the Admiralty Board) already exist. They will need to be reviewed in light of wartime experience, but this should only result in comparatively minor changes.
Β· One of the main bottlenecks in battleship construction is the gun mountings. Thanks to the (OTL) decision that work on the mountings would continue (see Part 1), work on the mountings has already been underway for over two years β by now they should be largely complete. These advantages would seem to swing the decision for the Lion, however there is a fly in the ointment β the armament. The Lions are designed for a new 16in gun. This isnβt yet in service, is of unproven reliability, and the production facilities for the ammunition arenβt in place yet. Furthermore, shortage of spare ammunition may place logistical constraints on deployment of the ships when complete.
Β· Tweaking the design to take account of war experience (for example more light AA) Β· Change the armament to 9 x 15 in guns β the 15 inch is a well liked and reliable weapon, and logistically speaking the logical choice β stocks of ammo exist all over the Empire, and wartime experience has already shown that in extremis, old 4crh ammo can be pressed into service (see APOD 6-9 Sept 40).
Time to Build Hopefully youβll pardon a historical digression, but this sets the yardstick by which Iβm judging potential build time. Warship 2009 contains an article βA shipyard at Warβ, all about the John Brown Yard during WW1. It contains a fairly detailed account of the building of HMS Repulse. According to the article, her keel was laid on 25 January 1915, and she had completed steam and gun trials and finally left the yard on 16 August 1916. As this included a 6 week delay while the ships plans were finalised, the effective build time was around 18 months. The reason the ship was completed so quickly was that the turrets were already available, having been re-assigned from an R class.
Time to Build Hopefully youβll pardon a historical digression, but this sets the yardstick by which Iβm judging potential build time. Warship 2009 contains an article βA shipyard at Warβ, all about the John Brown Yard during WW1. It contains a fairly detailed account of the building of HMS Repulse.
The timeline example makes a good deal of sense. The issue (as ever) will be drivers.
Does the RN need a new BB class, or a very large new CV?
We (most probably) have a 'Far East Fleet fully armoured battlecruiser' launched in late 1941. We have a class of 5 short-ranged 'working class BB' for European waters. The gap is obvious, there is no class of globally capable, long-endurance BB. Oh, and really, really big, long-range carriers with 90-100 plane air groups
That interesting thing? RN steam plants are old-fashioned, making long range ships harder to build. So when they swap their tradar tech, why don't they get USN steam plant technology in exchange?Then, in 1941, we have a powerful RN Far East Fleet which gets its head handed to it on a plate. The 'old FFO' verion of this was a great game, but it was not an AH. It had Tom Phillips completely ignore his strategic guidance. While we cannot tell yet what's going to happen, that sure as hell is not going to happen! Phillips was 'played stupid' in 'old FFO'. Kind of like the US Government until war outbreak was also 'played stupid', something I really did not like.
As soon as Phillips gets a flogging in the daylight, he will run. He is not permitted to risk the destruction of his fleet. Risking its defeat is different, that's just par for the course. He can get defeated and nobody will worry much about it provided he preserves the Fleet - defeats happen. Complete annihilation of a whole fleet does NOT. If the IJN big carriers are meanwhile beating seven bells of buggery out of Kimmel in the Marshalls, the RN has a problem. It does not have any big-air-group fleet carriers or the BB to escort them.
That sound we hear is all the chickens coming home to roost from the collapse of the central Imperial naval startegy of 1920-35, the Singapore Strategy which substituted bases and a one-hemisphere fleet for a globally-capable fleet.
Hmm. Sounds like a powerful driver for the 1944 Far East Fleet! Which it is, of course. This as all distorted in 'old FFO' by relentless cherrypicking of each and every incident or action to magnify the French contribution to the war.
But in APOD it's clearer.
In 1942, the RN knows it has to build a Pacific capable fleet that is also its postwar globally capable fleet. That means massive carriers on teh USN model, and they are needed yesterday (Singapore class nee Malta class) and they need a tropicalised/arctic capable fast BB with very long legs. One Vanguard does not cut it. So it is 2-4 huge carriers, 2-4 big, fast, long range BB and 8 very big fast fleet tankers. The rest already exists or is in planning.Comments??Cheers: Mark
Feb 15 10 12:05 PM
Mark
Wow β comprehensive response there, and at short notice too β impressive.
Ok, my comments:
Battleship Building - Vanguard
So as I understand it, youβre saying 1 x Vanguard will get built β OK, seeing the drivers I can believe that, however I think that your βWe (most probably) have a 'Far East Fleet fully armoured battlecruiser' launched in late 1941β is a bit optimistic time wise.
In OTL Vanguard was laid down October 41, I can see that without the Dry Cargo repair factor this date will come forward, but it CANβT happen before mid 1940 (if the divergence between OTL and FFO/APOD is mid 1940, then logically we canβt allow Vanguard to be laid down before that date β if it didnβt happen OTL it canβt happen here). Taking the POD as July, then realistically Iβd say that the best you can plausibly have is the order being placed in August 40, and ship laid down October 40.
Assuming that the turrets are substantially complete at that time, and applying the 20-22 month building time we used earlier, then Vanguard wonβt be ready until July/August 42.
Do you agree? Have I missed anything?
Battleship Building - Lions
OK, the decision to build Vanguard will have thrown some red meat to the Gun club at the Admiralty. Having pacified them, I can see Goodall prevailing and keeping the Lions remaining βon holdβ β sure they are βnice to haveβ, but so are plenty of other things (Cruisers, Carriers) and there simply arenβt enough resources to go round. There is no need to build the Lions yet (and they canβt be built without sacrificing something that is needed), so the drivers point towards them not going ahead.
Once Japan enters the war, and Admiral Philips has his defeat then the drivers change. At this point the βWe need Battleshipsβ lobby would prevail, and Iβd expect 2 Lions to be laid down and built to the timescale I set out at part 2 (NB, there are only enough turrets for 2 ships, if the Admiralty want to lay down 4, expect Goodall to point out that the additional 2 ships will take at least an extra year to build, and to stress that they probably wonβt be ready in time to take part in the war. Heβs also likely to stress that the additional Lions are likely to displace other high priority units (Carriers) that can be completed in time).
As far as guns are concerned, I still lean towards the 15 inch option (especially now youβve confirmed that the guns are available) β itβs the safe option, going 16 inch adds risk to the programme, and the important thing is to get the ships out to the fleet ASAP. Throw in the logistics issue (and the Pacific fleet is going to be fighting at the end of a very long logistics chain as it is, so anything that simplifies things has to be considered), and I think the case is more or less made.
Note - If the strategic situation allows, I suggest that 2 R class be decommissioned (they are really getting too old and slow for the battleline, and their crews can provide an experienced nucleus for the Lions)
Repair of Jean Bart and Richelieu
I wasnβt aware of the FFO US option. Like you said, it seems logical. I canβt see any reason to change it HOWEVER while it fits nicely with the British and French drivers, how does it sit with the US ones? If it fits with them then fine (no sense reinventing the wheel for the sake of it), but if it doesnβt, then youβve got Brown as a back up option.
Carrier Building at John Brown
I have to disagree with you on the MALTA, as I donβt think that the drivers/timelines allow it yet. Weβre talking about a building slot in October 41, which realistically means allocating it/starting to pull together material 4-6 months early β I just donβt see the drivers pointing to a MALTA that soon.
My source for this is Nelson to Vanguard, according to this the OTL the discussions leading to MALTA came out of the Future Building Committeeβs discussions of requirements that took place in December 42 β youβre bringing it forward by 18 months β what are the drivers for that?
If youβre going for a larger carrier than the Implacable (and here, I admit that the drivers point that way), Iβd say that an EAGLE/ARK ROYAL looks more realistic β in fact, on my reading of N to V, Iβd say that an EAGLE is a necessary precursor to a MALTA (it was the perceived advantages from EAGLE that led to the discussions that led to MALTA).
Look at the difference in sizes:
Β· Implacable 23,450t standard
Β· Eagle, 36,800t standard
Β· Malta, 46,900t standard
Bearing in mind that weβre talking about decisions made mid 1941 (i.e. before Japan enters the war), I just canβt see the drivers to jump from Implacable to Malta without the intervening step.
What do you think?
Tech Transfer with the US
We know that US steam plant is much more efficient, but exactly when do the RN find out? And when they do, how long before they believe it (overcoming the βNot Invested Hereβ syndrome), and unless you intend building all your capitol ships in US yards, how long is it going to take to transfer the knowledge/equipment required to UK yards?
All this gives you the earliest practical date to introduce US style plant to the RN, and while its a very nice idea, I donβt think that the timeline will allow the Lions to benefit (unless the Admiralty are willing to sanction a delay, which given that the Lions are going to be a βcrash priority, get them out the dockβ build, isnβt likely).
What do you think? Does this all hang together?
Feb 16 10 1:45 AM
Battleship Building - Vanguard So as I understand it, youβre saying 1 x Vanguard will get built β OK, seeing the drivers I can believe that, however I think that your βWe (most probably) have a 'Far East Fleet fully armoured battlecruiser' launched in late 1941β is a bit optimistic time wise.
Comment: Oh, the hull is easy and in wartime these tended to be launched when structurally completed to 90% to clear the slip for new construction. The complicated bit is the fit-out. In wartime they tended to do a lot of fitting (especially machiner) alongside the fit-out berth. Prewar this was done on the slip. All it does is trade less time on the building way for more time alongside the fit-out berth, there being more of teh latter than the former. There is no time saving, really.
Comment: Agree. The material buildup for the ship was slow (hull plating etc), they were working on the long lead items including armour, machinery and the main armament refurbishment. Basically, having the main armament takes a year off the build time. If we want an actual battlecruiser, then it's even faster. Tiger's armour exists in store at Rosyth. Her armament does too, but we have scheduled that for monitors.
Comment: Agree. I don't see anything missed. We'll have to do some checking on armour production stats.
Battleship Building - Lions OK, the decision to build Vanguard will have thrown some red meat to the Gun club at the Admiralty. Having pacified them, I can see Goodall prevailing and keeping the Lions remaining βon holdβ β sure they are βnice to haveβ, but so are plenty of other things (Cruisers, Carriers) and there simply arenβt enough resources to go round. There is no need to build the Lions yet (and they canβt be built without sacrificing something that is needed), so the drivers point towards them not going ahead.
Comment: We'll have to do lots of digging here, there is a lot to this issue. If speed in service becomes the most important driver, then the fastest option is repeat Vanguards. If 'powerful BB with long range' are the biggest drivers, then an actual 16" gunned class is the best option. It would take a delicate balancing of several drivers to get a class which uses existing guns in a new gun system, when the design for the 16" system exists and prototype guns and rotating components have been funded, developed and built. The quad 14" is also an option - on a 4 turret ship. 16 x 14" would water anyone's eyes! So the options are:
4 x 4 14", ~55,000t 4 x 2 15" ~50,000t 3 x 3 15" ~50,000t 4 x 3 15" ~55,000t 3 x 3 16" ~55,000t And with Goodall fighting all of them tooth and nail. Fun times!
Repair of Jean Bart and Richelieu I wasnβt aware of the FFO US option. Like you said, it seems logical. I canβt see any reason to change it HOWEVER while it fits nicely with the British and French drivers, how does it sit with the US ones? If it fits with them then fine (no sense reinventing the wheel for the sake of it), but if it doesnβt, then youβve got Brown as a back up option.
Comment: Agreed. This is one for Russ to look at and validate. He's the US Team Leader.
Carrier Building at John Brown I have to disagree with you on the MALTA, as I donβt think that the drivers/timelines allow it yet. Weβre talking about a building slot in October 41, which realistically means allocating it/starting to pull together material 4-6 months early β I just donβt see the drivers pointing to a MALTA that soon.
Comment: The drivers there may come from horrible experiences in the Pacific and (if they stay the same or broadly similar, which looks likely) and observing what Ranger does with a big air group on a fragile platform in the Med as opposed to a tough platform with a small airgroup (Illustrious). If that happens in APOD, it will be a driver too. So it cannot come forward 18 months, but maybe 6-10?? Now, if we have a 'Lion with US style steam plant' going forward even against Goodall's opposition, then we have an advance on the carrier as well - we have the machinery. The Lion program can be raided for its long lead items (the machinery), and the assembled material can be used too even though the hull is very different in design (carriers are a volumetric/acceleration hull, BB are a volume distribution/speed hull). That's the real advantage of an ongoing Lion program. Goodall would be all over it like a Taliban terrorist on to a pretty goat. It's also a foil to the 'gun club'.
And now we also re-open the RN's big cruiser debate too!
Look at the difference in sizes: Β· Implacable 23,450t standard Β· Eagle, 36,800t standard Β· Malta, 46,900t standard Bearing in mind that weβre talking about decisions made mid 1941 (i.e. before Japan enters the war), I just canβt see the drivers to jump from Implacable to Malta without the intervening step.
Comment: I'd genrally agree and note an issue with 'compression'. Looking at this closely, I cannot see the solid decision for a 'global fleet' style of ship being made before Feb-Apr 42 and orders being placed before mid 42. From purely experiences in the Med, they can start talking about bigger carriers, using Ark Royal as the conceptual root. That starts the debate going, and starts DNC sketching. Basically, they had a stop-start debate in OTL and Eagle (and orders) was a waystation along that process. In compressing this, the Eagle design will just become a 'Malta/Singapore second sketch' design in a process of which the big carrier is the endpoint.
What this implies if obvious, when/if they DO make that decision, it becomes a full-blooded major Imperial policy decision, with the carriers as the most important item. I think that may kill (or at least severely delay) the Lion class because they must strip that program for its slips and material. They'll need to build 'supercarriers' (at least the first pair) as fast as it is humanly possible to do so. They won't be building an interim type like Eagle, or indded like Centair. They'll have two types, the Majestic/Colossus utility carrier, and the 'global carrier'. Then they'll hae to think about its escort. This raises a cruiser type for the utility ship, and a big-gun ship for the 'global'.
Tech Transfer with the US We know that US steam plant is much more efficient, but exactly when do the RN find out? And when they do, how long before they believe it (overcoming the βNot Invested Hereβ syndrome), and unless you intend building all your capitol ships in US yards, how long is it going to take to transfer the knowledge/equipment required to UK yards?
Comment: The Admiralty knew in the late 30s that they had dropped behind the US in steam plant technology. They thought the USN was taking a significant technical risk. They had their own development program, but it was put onto the back burner by the urgent ned to re-arm. The USN had an additional 3 years as a result. The RN DNC followed developments and knew of the distance they had fallen behind. They were just too busy fighting a war and building stuff as fast as they could to do anything about it. In OTL they gave everything they had away to the USA for free and did not have the industrial capacity to do anything with a technological backtrade even if they had wanted to. Here, such desperation does not exist and they DO have the capacity to do build something from the back-trade. What does the USN have to trade? Well, the DNC and Engineers would say this is a high priority. Sure, it will use resources to tool up for, but in APOD they have these resources to do the job and the big British companies were no slouches in this area themselves. They were all running their own programs in the same area.
It's interesting to note that the USN had real trouble operating German high pressure steam plants postwar. The RN had far fewer problems. The reason, I think, is that with their extensive hi-pressure experience the USN tried to apply it to German plant, with mediocre results. The British, on the other hand, had little such experience and simply adopted the German procedures, with half-decent results.
On the timeline, while I suspect you may be right, the timeline will determine it.
What I think may very well benefit might just be the RN 'big crusier' program, if it comes to be in APOD. You have actually done everyone a service here. I thought that we probably already had this 'sorted' due to the debates held under 'old FFO', and what you've really done here is point out that this assumption is dead wrong. A good example, if the RN's Cv drivers result in the 'Malta' class 'global carrier' and the light fleet carrier as a 'utility carrier' as the future of the RN, then the linked needs for a heavy surface ship to escort the big 'un ALSO implies a new big cruiser for the 'utility ships'. The existing heavy cruisers are middle aged at best and the new large CL are going to be way too cramped and power limited by the time the need is recognised. They were never designed for that role and can't be modified for it - it's the old traditional 'armoured cruiser' role as station flagship. The RN won't need many of them, but they will need some. Fascinating.Cheers: Mark
Posts: 1284
Feb 16 10 6:29 AM
Uncle Sam
Feb 16 10 11:27 PM
Feb 17 10 5:24 AM
Posts: 15
Feb 19 10 2:52 PM
Feb 20 10 4:51 PM
- This is the first time I've ever heard that Tigers armor was retained. How long was in kept in storage?
- Just how fast could a new battlecruiser be built if the need was there and armament could be found?
- I seem to recall discussing this on the NFB. Did the proposed monitors account for all nine of the turrets from Tiger and Iron Duke?
- How far ahead is the RN thinking here? Are we talking about basically wanting to emulate what the USN was able to do in OTL with regard to time at sea, or is this driven by a post-Singapore realization that its global base network may be vulnerable and shouldn't be counted on to always be there?
- Are we talking about a real battleship meant to slug it out with other battleships? Or are we talking about a carrier-escort with big guns and lots of AAA, more of a modern battlecruiser?
- Just what are we talking about here? Are we talking about the 4x4 Belfast, or new 8" cruisers?
- Would the need for such a ship bolster Churchill's interest in big 9.2" armed cruisers? I recall that the big argument against these ships was that two Vanguards could be had for three of these cruisers, with the Vanguards being much more useful
Feb 21 10 1:45 AM
Posts: 53
Feb 21 10 8:40 AM
It would be very hard for the RN to not build the 4 Lion's if the Bismarck was not sunk by luck in May 41.Imagine she reached the french coast with damage to be repaired up to December 41. She would be available with Scharnhorst, Gneisenau and Prinz Eugen in February 42 for Operation CERBERUS or meeting the Tirpitz (and some more cruisers/Panzerschiffe....)I really would enjoy to read, what Mark did with a powerfull german BatRon in the western approaches
Feb 22 10 2:53 AM
Feb 22 10 12:40 PM
Feb 23 10 2:05 AM
Posts: 92
Mar 27 10 1:29 PM
Mar 27 10 1:30 PM
Mar 27 10 9:33 PM
Satans blood. How I hate f**king worthless Yuku. It was designed by devout practising bestial-necrophiliacs, I am sure. Just lost 60 minutes of detailed research down the toilet.
I will rewrite this as part of the RN paper (which I should have done at the bloody start)The guts:Vanguard gets builtLion and Temeraire get built (mid 44 in service)Nelson gets 6" replaced by 5.25"Dido class gets reworkedTowns and Colonies no change except Colonies all become 9 x 6" to free up capacity for the 16" for the Lions1940 6" and 8" cruisers get replaced by a 9.2" gunned designMark (the very pissed-off)
Share This